Opinion

Turner v. State

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
Filed
Jul 21, 1997
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 30.2%

The opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE FILED

JUNE 1997 SESSION July 21, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

DONALD RAY TURNER, )

) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9605-CC-00205

Appellant, )

) JOHNSON COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. LYNN W. BROWN,

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE

)

Appellee. ) (Habeas Corpus)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

DONALD RAY TURNER, pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP

Inmate # 150280, unit 10-233 Attorney General & Reporter

P.O. Box 5000

Northeast Correctional Center ELIZABETH T. RYAN

Mountain City, TN 37683 Asst. Attorney General

450 James Robertson Pkwy.

Nashville, TN 37243-0493

DAVID CROCKETT

District Attorney General

Route 19, Box 99

Johnson City, TN 37601

OPINION FILED:____________________

AFFIRMED: RULE 20 ORDER

JOHN H. PEAY,

Judge

ORDER

On January 25, 1991, the petitioner pled guilty to numerous forgery

charges. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on February 22, 1996. This petition

was dismissed on April 1, 1996. It is from this dismissal that he now appeals. Upon

review of the record in this cause, we conclude that this is an appropriate case for

affirmance under Rule 20.

In his petition for habeas corpus, the petitioner alleged that his guilty plea

was unconstitutional because his defense counsel was ineffective and because another

person, the defendant’s nephew, had actually committed the crimes in question.

The trial court correctly dismissed the petition on the grounds that habeas

corpus relief is available in Tennessee only when it appears on the face of the judgment

or record that the trial court was without jurisdiction to convict or sentence the petitioner,

or that the sentence of imprisonment has expired. See Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157,

164 (Tenn. 1993). Moreover, “[i]f the court rendering a judgment has jurisdiction of the

person, the subject-matter, and has the authority to make the challenged judgment, the

judgment is voidable, not void; and the judgment may not be collaterally attacked in a suit

for habeas corpus relief.” Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App.

1994). The petitioner’s allegations, if proven, would render his conviction voidable rather

than void. Thus, the trial court properly dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 20 of the Tennessee

Court of Criminal Appeals. This cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Johnson

2

County for execution of the judgment of that court. It appearing that the petitioner is

indigent, costs of the appeal will be paid by the State, for which let execution issue.

_________________________________

JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

CONCUR:

______________________________

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge

______________________________

J. CURWOOD WITT, JR., Judge

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.